You are here

Gay fashion designers

Submitted by Admin on Fri, 11/04/2005 - 22:16

Although I have cited “The Advocate,” a major U.S. publication catering to homosexuals, on the gay domination of the fashion business, some people read so superficially that they would accuse me of using nothing other than my own assurance and pictures of the faces and physiques of fashion models to argue that the fashion business is dominated by gays, and this in spite of my quoting the following statement published in the Advocate:

To observe that gay men and lesbians dominate the fashion business may seem about as controversial as saying that Russians rule Moscow.

The tone of the statement above connotes pride, which shouldn’t be surprising given that plenty of gays are proud of being homosexual. Below, you will find some excerpts from Fred Goss in the 1997 issue (June 10, volume 735) of the Advocate that I have cited.

Few industries are seen as gayer than fashion. Stereotypes aside, the world of couture has indeed been molded by the vast numbers of gay men and lesbians working in the industry. Yet Seventh Avenue and its European counterparts remain strangely closeted. We've charted some of the brightest lights who've made no secret of their sexuality. But that's not all: In our cover story, on page 28, we meet the guru of Gucci, Tom Ford; menswear maverick Gene Meyer gets the spotlight on page 37; and jewelers Jelena Behrend and Trisha Alkaitis tell all on page 39. Each is compelling proof that fashion owes its very life to the gay sensibility.

I have bolded a sentence above because of its importance. Goss went on to list some big gay names in the fashion world within the past few decades:

Kevyn Aucoin: His book The Art of Makeup left no doubt that he is, above all, an artist. His canvas just happens to be a woman's face. Who could dispute that he's the heir apparent to Way Bandy (see below)?

Way Bandy: The master of maquillage. In his hands the makeup brush, sponge, or wand became a true tool of transformation. His AIDS-related death robbed the cosmetics field of a genius.

John Bartlett: One of today's most "in" designers, he's also one of the most "out." Bartlett's unapologetically gay stance in the often-closeted world of fashion makes him one of our heroes.

Mr. Blackwell: As Mae West might have said, when he's good he's very, very good, but when he's bad he's better. This merry viper has turned fashion criticism into a comic--if often deadly--art.

Raymond Dragon: In an era of the designer as media star, Dragon embodies the porn star as designer. His revealing clothes look great on those who have the body--like Dragon, a sometime Colt model--for making porn.

Perry Ellis: Perhaps the most notorious AIDS death in fashion was that of this great American innovator in sportswear. Ellis was to Seventh Avenue what George M. Cohan was to Broadway: a Yankee Doodle Dandy.

Jean-Paul Gaultier: He's been called the enfant terrible of fashion for so long, you wonder how much of an enfant he could still be. The king of sci-fi fashion, Gaultier drew his inspiration from his mother's foundation garments. And you wondered why he had Madonna wearing her undies on the outside of that nice suit.

Halston: Halston was the first designer-as-celebrity--not for him the obscurity of the faceless couturiers who labored unseen in their workrooms. Halston's society connections helped make him, and he in turn helped remake society. Go ask Liza.

David LaChapelle: Blessed with a sort of gay Midas touch, LaChapelle defies the classic contention that photography isn't really art. His vivid, offbeat photos often make his largely heterosexual subjects look like camp icons.

Bob Mackie: Since the `60s he has produced the glitziest costumes on TV, giving many Americans their most consistent exposure to the world of fashion. With his trademark baubles, bangles, and beads, he has dressed all our favorite network divas--from Cher to Carol Burnett.

Law Mizrahi: He's the garmento elevated to the level of movie star. His revealing star turn in the documentary Unzipped earned him scores of new fans. Known for a vivacious use of color and an uptown-meets-downtown sensibility, he's the designer you'd be happy to take home to Mom.

Thierry Mugler: Like fellow Parisian Gaultier, Mugler has a taste for the surreal. As much carnival as couture, his shows are notable for the inclusion of such porn stars as Jeff Stryker among his fantastically clad models. Where leather is concerned, no other designer has given us a bigger twist on Tom of Finland.

Todd Oldham: Propelled to New York by his talent for making--in true Texas fashion--bad taste look deluxe, Oldham made an MTV-flavored name for himself as the hottest purveyor of kitschy, campy, funky thrift-shop chic.

Willi Smith: Smith--our biggest black designer and one of fashion's greatest AIDS losses--took the look of the "street" and made it fashionable. Neither fashion nor the street has ever looked the same since.

Andre Leon Talley: This star maker's acute sense of what's hot and what's not in fashion--developed at Women's Wear Daily and Vogue as well as at Interview--has made him the Diana Vreeland of the `90s. Can a one-man Broadway show be far behind?

Gianni Versace: Since the `70s his mission has been to dress his female clients like high-class hookers. Versace's a favorite of rockers and Hollywood types of both sexes, patrons who could vouch for the truth in Dolly Parton's line "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap!"

Bruce Weber: He built a career on the glorification of male beauty. A true auteur of still photography, Weber spawned a generation of models who would rather die than make eye contact with the camera.

Although it is not mentioned above, Halston also died of AIDS. Lesbians are nowhere as prominent among top-ranked fashion designers as the statement about gays and lesbians dominating the fashion business implies, but the author is likely trying to not give the impression that the contribution of lesbians is less than that of gays.

More big-name fashion designers in the 20th century who also happen(ed) to be homosexual are mentioned below.

The gay influence behind fashion is not just in terms of fashion designers:

In his book Hard to Imagine, Thomas Waugh argues that before the advent of gay liberation there was a "highly interconnected trans-Atlantic web of gay intelligentsia and denizens of high Bohemia," which included men such as Noël Coward, Cecil Beaton, George Hoyningen Huene, Jean Cocteau, and Horst, and which operated to define the image of glamor in the London and New York worlds of fashion, design, and show business.

Ross Higgins, in his study of gay men's involvement in fashion in Montreal, has shown that gay men were involved at all levels of the fashion industry there. The same is undoubtedly true throughout North America and Western Europe.

Increasingly men began to be portrayed as sexual objects in advertising. Calvin Klein's huge billboard advertisement for underwear is only the most famous example of this trend. New magazines aimed at a wider, heterosexual male consumer were published, but even here a gay influence could be perceived. It was not just that gay designers were creating the looks, but gay stylists, hairdressers, and photographers all exerted a fashion influence. (source)

Those interested in why homosexual men dominate the fashion business should read this.

Comments

if their idea of beauty is adolescent boys, doesn't that make it pedophilia? even regardless of sexual orientation? the question is whether pedophilia is to be socially acceptable, even at the expense of supressing natural femininity. it doesn't follow that homosexuals are necessarily attracted to children.

Zahi: Pedophilia implies a preference for pre-pubescents; a preference for adolescents is termed hebephilia. Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here).

Why don't you stop peddling your disgusting accusations if you don't have any solid proof to back it up? You are basically accusing these designers of being pederasts and you don't know if they have ever slept with or been attracted to a teenaged boy. I know you are going to come up with some bullshit "science" to back up your pathetic points but before you do that let me say that if they are attracted to teenagers they are certainly not alone. The amount of barely legal teen sites can attest that a lot of the members of your beloved "lifetime exclusive heterosexual" crowd have the same fantasies. Pederasty is illegal, disgusting and very frowned upon in western society so accusing these men of wanting to sleep with boys is basically slanderous.

I don't like your scuzzy, trailer park nude models. I don't think they are beautiful and I definately don't want them to be within a mile of couture clothing. Does that make me a pederast?

A lot of male models have startingly feminine appearances.
Like Jarrod Branch

and Danila Polyakov:

and mathias lauridsen:

They are also all very thin. Now I wonder why they are chosen as models. If designers are only interested in teen boys shouldn't they chose models tnat look like teen boys? Maybe they are interested in variety and uniqueness more than they are interested in geting into a teen's tightie wighties. Maybe thinness is a general requirement for all models because of sample aizes and the variety of styles and silhouettes that a tall lean body will look presentable in. Maybe thin models give designers a lot of freedom with what they can send down the runway without the fear of unsightly bulges or vulgar folds of flesh spilling out and over. Maybe just maybe the whole world doesn't agree with you about waht is beautiful, feminine and worthy of admiration and emulation.

Danielle: What do you mean that I don't have solid proof? A man doesn't need to have had sexual relations with underage boys in order to be a pederast. He just needs to be sexually attracted to them. All one needs to do is to look at enough female high-fashion models and it would be clear that the dominant individuals in the fashion industry typically find boys in their early adolescence aesthetically appealing. We also know that these dominant individuals happen to be homosexual men.

Go through the two links that I cited in response to Zahi Stephens. It is not just gay fashion designers but homosexual and bisexual men in general that are often attracted to underage boys, much more often than heterosexual men are attracted to underage girls. There is massive evidence from history (most homosexuality in history has been in a pederastic context), child molesting priests (great majority go after boys), fraternal birth order evidence showing that male homosexual pedophiles and male homosexuals attracted to adult men belong to the same broad sexual orientation group, evidence from cluster analysis showing a clear association between same-sex attraction and sexual interest in children, etc. Just read the cited materials.

The male models you have shown do not have feminine faces. It is their bodies, dress, posing, etc. that are responsible for looks approaching the effeminate. They are on the thin side in order to be as close to the appearance of the physiques of adolescent boys that the homosexuals can get away with, which translates to a late-adolescence look in males.

It is not clear that the dominant designers and photographers in the high fashion industry are pederasts. Most people think that models look like tall, skinny girls. Most People don't think "OMG ADOLESCENT BOY!!!!" when they look at fashion models. They do not look like boys!!! They may have minimal T&A and "wide rib cages" (LOL) but they do not look like boys.

You seem to have a very wide definition of what is masculine. If those boys are "masculine" then all males must be masculine. Your definition of what is feminine is obviously far more narrow. If being a white, trailer trash whore makes someone feminine then I am proudly masculine.

I won't even bother to try to address that homophobic crap that you seem to think is scientific proof that gay men want to screw boys. Your cited materials are bullshit. Why not contact some reputable sources like the American Psychiatric Association to get some real data? Maybe you should stop picking and choosing data from deranged pseudoscientists to support your crackpot theories.

I recall that you once said that homosexuals have mental problems then you cited a source that compared them with pedophiles as if they were two distinct groups. Your argument seemed to be that homosexuals are more deranged than pedophiles (LOL) because they report more guilt and shame with their sexuality then pedophiles. What happened to your distinction between the two?

Ummm. Did anyone stop to make the connection between the information that everyone brought up? Female high fashion models typically have stronger features connotated with males. Male high-fashion models, on the other hand, typically have features that could be considered feminine. Did anyone stop to think that designers aren't looking for an 'adolescent boy' look, but rather an ANDROGYNOUS look. A look that can be as versatile as a model's thinness? If a model can give both feminine and masculine looks, no matter the gender, the model is going to get more jobs because of it. Same with thinness. Did anyone stop to think that the most successful high-fashion models are the ones that have versatile looks? Don't be so quick to damn the homosexual community as 'pedophiles.'

Just because someone is gay, or bi doesn't mean they automatically think that young boys are attractive, or even have a greater tendency to. That's like saying that all Christians are super conservative simply because a few are. It's an awful generalization, reducing a community to the sum of it's worst parts. Also, a note on pedastery: finding someone attractive does not mean you are being a pervert. My younger brother is on the swim team, and it's a lot of adolescent guys and girls running around in swim suits. A person can look at someone, say a fourteen or fifteen year old, and say that they find them attractive. Or pretty. That doesn't mean that they have an instant desire for them, or that they are thinking of them sexually. I can look at a girl and say 'Man, she's hot,' or 'Wow, she's really pretty.' Does that make me any less heterosexual? No. Does it make me a pervert? No. You're making hasty generalization based upon a limited field of evidence.

Also, I would like to note (and this is directed towards the creator of this page) , that your 'glamour' models aren't very pretty, or appealing. Most of them look like white trash. Feminine beauty should not be cut and packaged as you seem to be trying to do here. I take great offense to the words 'typical male height' in reference to models. I am five ten myself, and it's not exactly something I can really control. So you condemn me to being masculine and 'unattractive' simply because I have the predisposed genetics for height and high cheek bones? At least the fashion industry idolizes those with different looks such as large noses, prominent foreheads, and just strange looking faces in general. You see a more varied array of looks in the fashion industry, that doesn't mean the looks are not feminine. If your round-cheeked, soft-jawed, cookie cutter faces are the only ideal of 'true feminine' beauty than a good deal of the population who are tall, or broad shouldered, or flat chested, or who have angular faces, or flat butts are in trouble.

Danielle: To say that female high-fashion models tend to have boyish looks is not to say that they generally look like boys. I do not have a wide definition of masculinity. Masculinized women are masculine compared to feminine-to-normal women, not men.

You have described my citation as B.S. without any justification. How reasonable. The citations do not make the case that “gay men want to screw boys” but that a much greater proportion of gay men want to screw boys than the proportion of straight men who want to screw girls. The majority of homosexual men are attracted to adult men.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is a reputable psychiatric organization, but scientific arguments rest on evidence, not reputation. The APA was long ago hijacked by the gay lobby and hence APA position statements on politically sensitive issues related to homosexuality are useless for debate. What matters is the evidence the APA cites. The APA and other professional mental health organizations cite evidence such as Jenny et al. (1994), Groth and Birnbaum (1978), etc. to support the argument that there is no association between homosexuality and sexual interest in children, but the links I provided take care of these papers and numerous other arguments coming from the gay lobby. Don’t waste your time accusing me of selectively citing evidence. I will take on any psychiatrist/psychologist who is willing to debate the issue of the relation between homosexuality and sexual interest in children with me.

I have never portrayed homosexuals and pedophiles as the same group. These groups are different, but this doesn’t mean that there is no overlap between the two. I also have not argued that homosexuals are more deranged than pedophiles.

Kris: If you look at gay pride parades, you will see plenty of cross dressers/people with androgynous looks. A number of homosexuals find these looks appealing. Androgyny in fashion models does not reflect selection for versatility, but looks that appeal to numerous homosexual fashion designers. The female models are sometimes androgynous but a lot of them lean toward the look of boys in their early adolescence. The effeminacy of many male high-fashion models is usually limited to muscular build/skeletal thickness, but if they had well-developed muscles then their physical build would deviate more from boys in their late adolescence (about as young as the homosexuals could get away with).

Please read carefully. I am not damning the entire homosexual community as pedophiles. Haven’t you read above that most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children? There is obviously a difference between finding someone attractive in a non-sexual manner and being attracted to this person in a sexual manner. But do you seriously believe that many of the homosexual fashion designers do not find boys sexually appealing?

Talking about a woman with male-typical height does not mean that she is masculine. There are plenty of tall feminine women around; read this entry on height in women and its relation to femininity and attractiveness. Similarly, high-cheekbones by themselves will not make a woman masculine. A woman will look masculine if many of her physical features distributed throughout the body look masculine. The fashion industry doesn’t idolize those with different looks or else you would see a wide variety of deviations from the norm among models, but the typical deviation observed among female models is to lean toward the looks of adolescent boys, and it is obvious why.

You are really pathetic Eric. People who don't agree with your homophobic rubbish have been bullied by the gay lobby? Oh please! You are grasping at straws here. Your bullshit sources don't need to be refuted at length because it would be a waste of time to wade through all that garbage. I am sure that you can find "scientists" who believe that AIDS can be cured with cough syrup and who believe that the loch ness monster is real. Being a "scientist" doesn't mean that your "studies" or beliefs are worth debating.

You are willing to believe your bullshit sources over the studies and statements of the APA because it supports your own crackpot theories. OOOOOOOHHHHHH TEH GAY MAFIA IS EVERYWHERE! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

Danielle: There is no point in debating if you are going to dismiss the evidence I cite as garbage without examining it let alone refuting it. I mentioned papers such as the Jenny et al. (1994) and the Groth & Birnbaum (1978) studies used by the APA and how they don’t support the APA’s claims as justified at the cited webpages, which primarily reference data from peer-reviewed psychology and psychiatry journals.

I can cite plenty of data about the influence of the gay lobby in the APA, but it would be a waste of my time since you won’t bother going over it.

Der Wanderer, don't tell me to get lost. You may think that fashion models look like boys but you don't speak for the majority anymore than I do. If you think that any of the "data" that Eric collects is scientific then you have bigger problems than I do. I use descriptive language to describe Eric's "models" just like Eric describes fashion models as trannys and hermaphrodites. If you think I am telling people to hate what I hate just because I hate it then I am a lot like the guy that makes this site. I am not telling anyone to think that models are beautiful though I think a lot of them are. I am telling Eric that his site is useless, his arguments are flawed and he won't succeed in changing the fashion world. Losers like you and Eric have NO power over the aesthetic of gay designers. THANK GOD! BTW, I'm not a guy.

Danielle: I have never described high-fashion models as “hermaphrodites” or “trannies.” I have used the expressions male-to-female transsexual and male transvestite, and for some fashion models only. These are neutral terms and are needed for descriptive purposes. At worst, I have used “drag queen” twice and there have been a handful of instances of sarcasm on my part as in putting some expressions -- e.g., sexy model -- in quotes to convey the irony (most of these examples are on the “Sexy fashion models?” page).

On the other hand, your comments on the feminine women shown are not descriptive; they are gross/hateful insults: “trailer trash whore,” “fugbeast,” “ogre,” etc.

If this were a useless site, you would not be a regular here. I don’t have the power to change the aesthetic preferences of homosexual designers, and I am pleased you have acknowledged its role after all, but I believe that I can undermine the gay influence behind the selection of beauty pageant contestants and lingerie models. You never know, if most people wake up to why high-fashion models are typically very thin, ultra-thin models may get banned in more nations (Italy was a big one since Milan is one of the fashion capitals of the world), and boy will the homosexuals be pleased if this happens! I personally don’t favor legislation to ban ultra-thin models since some women are naturally thin and should not be denied an opportunity to model if that is what the homosexuals want, but at least legislation can force the homosexuals to prove that their thin models are naturally skinny and reasonably healthy.

My descriptions of your soft porn models are no less neutral than your description of high fashion models. Why don't you try describing some random woman that you meet as a male-to-female transsexual and see how well she takes it. Many Male-to-female transsexuals easily pass for women so they aren't a good example to use if you want to insult high fashion girls. Have you ever watched trashy daytime talk shows? Many people are easily fooled into thinking that transsexuals are biological females, even their sexual partners don't know.

The words I use to describe your porn girls are just as insulting and just as descriptive as the words you use to describe VS models. The term "trailer trash" is often used to describe low class, trashy Caucasian people. All of your soft porn girls fit this description and many of them are unattractive and slovenly so "whore", "fugbeast" and "ogre" are fitting descriptions for them.

Your site is useless in terms of trying to achieve your goals. You fail to convince people who think VS girls are pretty that they are masculine and unacceptable lingerie models. People who always thought VS girls were ugly are the ones who agree with you so they didn't need convincing anyways. Your site won't effect a change in the fashion industry or in the minds of those who like these VS models. Your site is potentially harmful and can cause women with low self esteem to feel even worse about themselves. Several people have already made the point that you are no different from the gay designers that you criticize. You push your rigid aesthetic onto others and unlike the gay designers you have no subtlety. You will say outright that a woman is unattractive and masculine.

Several women have emailed their pictures to you and asked you to judge their pictures on the masculine-feminine scale. There are women who are insecure enough to email their pictures to strangers so that their faces and bodies can be scrutinized and you see no problem with this. Striving to be "feminine" isn't as bad as striving to be thin although there is no way to change a "masculine" bone structure without major surgery. Your site is also potentially harmful to the gay community. You characterize their sexuality as deviant and abhorrent and you have compared them with pedophiles. You also characterize gay designers as pederasts, which is completely abusive and slanderous. Any crazy homophobe, apart from you, may use this false information as a weapon against gay people in general. You are irresponsible and delusional.

"You fail to convince people who think VS girls are pretty that they are masculine and unacceptable lingerie models. People who always thought VS girls were ugly are the ones who agree with you so they didn’t need convincing anyways. Your site won’t effect a change in the fashion industry or in the minds of those who like these VS models."

You're wrong, Danielle. I used to think Adriana Lima, Alessandra Ambrosio, and Gisele Bundchen were hot. Then I found this site and realized I was so wrong.

Danielle: There is no way your description of the feminine women shown here is anywhere comparable to my description of masculinized models. Using expressions such as “masculinized” or “male-to-female transsexual looks” or “male transvestite looks” to describe the appearance of a model suggests to someone who hasn’t seen the model that she is masculinized, whereas your expressions such as “trailer trash whore,” “fugbeast” and “ogre” do not describe the physical condition of the women to those who haven’t seen them. Your terms are purely hateful expressions. In my case I have had to use words to describe looks sometimes, and have chosen appropriate descriptions. You can call these descriptions unflattering but there is nothing hateful about them. A random woman who hears her looks described as that of a male-to-female transsexual would not be pleased, but this site is not about random women and unflattering [not insults] descriptions simply have to be used within this site on numerous occasions.

Male-to-female transsexuals, on average, do not look like women but they usually look more feminine than male transvestites, and hence using the transsexual expression is appropriate to describe the looks of masculinized models who are too masculine to pass off as typical women but more feminine than the typical male transvestite.

Whereas “trailer trash” and “low class whites” refer to the same group, the former expresses contempt whereas the latter is a neutral description. I am typically using neutral descriptions, whereas you are typically writing insults. How do you know that the women I have been featuring are low class? As a general rule, good looking glamour models are middle class and up, and many are financially well off. How can you describe these women as unclean and untidy? You don’t know anything about how well they groom themselves or maintain their belongings.

Unattractiveness is mere absence of attractiveness, but it takes a lot more for someone to be called ugly, namely physical defects/abnormalities. I haven’t described any of the high-fashion models and beauty pageant contestants as ugly, whereas you have used words worse than ugly to describe the glamour models (e.g., fugly).

Tell me that my site is useless if you don’t see it having any impact 5 years hence. In the meantime, don’t repeat this. Also do not delude yourself that I have not convinced many people about the true nature of Victoria’s Secret models. Brenda has acknowledged her awakening. I can cite other comments within this site and emails that I have received, too.

My site is far less harmful to women’s self-esteem than what the homosexuals are doing. I am promoting standards already harbored by most people, and hence this site wouldn’t be educating most women that they do not meet standards of feminine beauty, but the homosexuals are pushing an anomalous ideal that is going against the inclination of most people. You have acknowledged that aiming for femininity isn’t as bad as starving oneself to acquire ultra thin looks, but then mentioned that whereas thinness is achievable to a greater or lesser extent, greater femininity is not unless one resorted to drastic approaches such as bone surgery, but how many women will be prompted to seek bone surgery after going through this site? Answer here.

What do you mean I see no problem with women emailing me their pictures and asking me to rate them? I am not asking anyone to do so. The women that have done this knew what they were doing.

I have not characterized the sexuality of homosexuals as deviant and abhorrent. I have simply described it as it is, not bothered to label it. I have not compared homosexuals to pedophiles. I have pointed out on more than one occasion (see above for example) that most homosexuals are attracted to adults. I didn’t say that gay designers are pederasts, but that pederastic interests are quite common among these homosexuals, which is obvious.

How can one use false information as a weapon against homosexuals in general? Falsehood will not stand to scrutiny.

If most women would be insulted if they were described as male transvestites or male-to-female transsexuals then how the hell are these descriptions neutral and not insulting? You have made up your own definitions for everything. My descriptions imply contempt because I do feel contempt for your "models". They allow themselves to be photographed and videotaped in sleazy degrading ways. They have their legs spread and are bent over to show their asses and pudendas for the camera in a lot of your photographs. I find that absolutely nasty and pathetic.

My descriptions of your LOW CLASS models are very fitting. They may usually come from middle class backgrounds and earn a lot of money (yeah right) but I don't use the term low class to refer to their economic situation. They have chosen a line of "work" that I find unsavory and vulgar. I have much more respect for garbage men and gardeners because while I wouldn't want to work these jobs at least they are not selling away their dignity. I have no problem with photographed or videotaped nudity as long as it appears to be conducted in a tasteful and unexploitive manner. I think your models are disgusting and ugly and that is why I insult them. They are ugly to me. Your definition of ugly is a personal one. Please don’t apply your made up definitions to my statements or to the rest of the world. Most people think ugliness describes physical attractiveness and not necessarily physical deformities though it is very nice of you to describe deformed or disabled people as ugly. Your women are untidy and smelly looking in their photos and that’s why I describe them as slovenly.

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I do NOT believe that it is better to strive for femininity over thinness. These can be both equally harmful goals because your definition of femininity may not be easy to achieve for a lot of women without surgery or other potentially harmful invasive procedures. Your stupid little pages about body esteem will have little effect if some women are stupid an insecure enough to email their pictures to a weirdo like you for approval. Most women can't afford the surgery required to drastically change their bodies but they may still covet the "feminine" looks that you idealize which will easily result in low self esteem. Your little site is stupid and your data is rubbish so you will never have as big of an effect on aesthetics as the creative, popular gay designers. Reasonable people won't take your views on femininity and homosexuality seriously but weirdos like you and others on this site do take this stuff seriously. They believe in your bullshit citations over respected sources so it doesn't matter your data is easily falsified because they are raging morons who think that their opinions are fact.

Danielle: I wrote “...would not be pleased...” rather than “would be insulted.” You also mentioned random women. The fact is that the majority of women selected at random will not look sufficiently masculine to be describable as looking like male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites. I wouldn’t use these phrases to describe the looks of a woman unless she had the requisite looks and it were necessary to do so, and using descriptive terminology when it is apt and required is neutral usage even if it is unflattering. The same cannot be said about your terms such as “fugbeast.”

Your criticism of the models related to their nude modeling is meaningless. This site does not address behavior, just looks. You cannot disparage looks by taking behavior into account.

You used the term low class in reference to “trailer trash,” and the phrase would have little meaning to start with if it didn’t refer to behavior associated with people having low socioeconomic status. Strange that you accuse me of making up definitions but come up with your own.

Many of the women that I have featured are taken from sites depicting artistic nudity, which you do not have a problem with by your own admission, but you still insult them.

If it is very nice of me to describe people with physical deformities as ugly then I suppose it is extremely nice of you to describe women without physical deformities as not only ugly, but as fugbeasts (fuc*ing ugly + beastly). How will this help the self-esteem of the poor women who look like these fugbeasts? And these women look untidy and smelly to you!

You wrote, “Striving to be “feminine” isn’t as bad as striving to be thin,” i.e., I didn’t misinterpret your comment. How will my site lower the self-esteem of the women who already believe that feminine beauty is desirable (which most women believe)?

It is strange that you talk about reasonable people in reference to yourself and then come up with a critique relying on descriptors such as stupid, rubbish data, weirdos, bullshit, raging morons, etc!

Eric, most women would not be pleased if they were described as transsexuals or male transvestites, in other words, they would be insulted. Whether or not most women look like transsexuals is not the point. The point is most women would be insulted if they were described as trannies so when you argue that high fashion models look like trannies you are using terminology that most women would find insulting. Your terms are not considered neutral by most people. Your “models” are fucking ugly and beastly hence the term "fugbeast".

I have disparaged the looks of your “models” many times by referring to them as fugbeasts with plain or ugly faces. The "occupation" that your “models” choose is the basis for many of my insults but not all of them. I think that most of your models are very physically unattractive. You are probably thinking that most people would find them very attractive and I disagree. Most people would find most of them either semi-attractive or butt ugly.

I used the term low class to refer generally to their behavior. When I called your “models” trailer trash I was referring to their appearance and I admit that I assumed they belonged in the lower socioeconomic group. I made my assumption because I couldn't believe that a woman from an upper to middle class background with reasonably marketable skills would choose such a debasing way of earning money. You say that most of these girls come from middle class backgrounds and make lots of money but I highly doubt the veracity of that statement. Anyways, these girls could have all the money in the world but they would still be low class because of their occupation and most people would agree. I can't see where these women live or know how much they make but I can see that they have very little dignity and possibly have a sad mentality hence the term low class (widely used term).

I haven't seen a single artistic nude on your website. I don't go clicking around your web sources for these fugbeasts so I wouldn't know if the source sites have any artistic nudes. I doubt that there are any. You may have a different view of artistry than I do. You may even feel that because some of your fugbeasts are bending over on beaches and in puddles they must be "artsy" photographs.

I went to your art page and discovered that the artwork there was mostly pinups, some are cute and some are trashy. I think that your choice for artwork was very surprising, then I changed my mind. I originally assumed that you would mainly feature classical western nudes as examples of "feminine" beauty in artwork then I realized that many of these nudes probably have too many "masculine" features for your tastes. Isn't it ironic that you couldn't find "feminine" girls in classic western art? You had to rely on cheesy pin-ups which is really indicative of your overall aesthetic. You want women to look like streetwalkers.

You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty. Your aesthetic panders to the lowest common denominator. It is no wonder that you feel that some of the nudes on this site are artistic. It is also no wonder that you have no appreciation for high fashion and for some of the incredibly beautiful clothes and photographs that gay designers and photographers produce. A fashion editorial could have beautiful lighting, location and contrasts and you would look past this and past the styling and poses of the model. Your eyes would be critically drawn to the models physique and so called "masculine" features. You can't appreciate art or true beauty because you are a narrow minded dullard.

I guess you really didn't misinterpret my comment. It needed a question mark.

Danielle: I have not argued that “high fashion models look like trannies.” I have shown plenty of pictures of high-fashion models that look like women. I have only described some high-ranked fashion models as women with the looks of male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites, explained this in terms of the necessity of saying that the “Emperor has no clothes” and said that there is no pleasant way to say this. I would not use these descriptions to describe the looks of ordinary women.

When one uses “low class” in reference to behavior, one will be assumed to refer to behavior mostly found among people with low socioeconomic status (SES). Therefore, your label doesn’t make any sense. Among white women, those coming from a lower SES background tend to be more obese and less attractive, and you could tell just by looking at the attractive women section that most of them are unlikely to have come from a low SES background.

What do you mean that you haven’t seen a single artistic nude within this site? There are plenty. Just consider this page, which shows 5 nudes from 4 sources, and three of these sources (Met Art, Playboy magazine and Domai) feature artistic nudes; feel free to go to the sites and see samples for yourself. Met Art shows genitals, but Domai and Playboy magazine display very little of genitals. In addition, in the attractive women section at present, there are 60 women; six of them do not pose/haven’t posed nude; another woman has been a tease in photos but hasn’t gone beyond exposing nipples/breasts in a translucent dress. Therefore, there is non-nude artistic stuff there, too.

My response to your statement beginning, “You have no real appreciation for artistic nuance and unusual beauty...” has been addressed in this entry on a Tom Ford ad, which you have already read, and this comment at the link addresses your comment on Classical Western art. In case you are wondering about my not using early nude photographs, the nude women were often prostitutes and prostitutes tend to be masculinized. Therefore, searching through old photos will not be productive. When stigma against nudity lessened, the prostitutes were replaced by regular women posing nude because the regular women looked better (more feminine).

Where did the idea come from that women have to look ultra feminised and men have to look masculine anyway?

This has puzzled me and I think it may be modern conditioning. Some people are naturally androgynous looking and let's not forget everyone starts with two X chromosomes. It seems to be taken generally as an insulting or odd thing if males look feminine, (childish) example 'OMG, he looks so gaaaaaay', as if a./ it's unnatural and b./ they are somehow weaker than their more masculine-looking, square-jawed contemporaries. It is also an inverted dig at women as being weaker or lesser thean men in general although I don't even think people know they are doing/thinking it. It just seems to be the way people are conditioned to think in our modern times, without ever questioning where these 'rules' come from or why they are there.

Sorry, deviating from the main point but it just fascinates me that we have these set boundaries in general.

As for this:

"Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here)."

I disagree. Because the true numbers of paedophiles out there are not known. And what about all the childhood rapes and abuses by straight fathers and stepfathers of daughters that never ever even get on record because these children are too frightened to report it. There must have been millions down the ages. I think any figures are misleading and not representative of a larger more unreported picture.

"“Most homosexuals are not sexually attracted to children, but a much greater proportion of them are attracted to children than heterosexuals (ref: here and here).”

Oh, and just to add to this. Lol, tell that to all the civilisations down the ages such as the ancient Egyptians that glorified not only in incestuous marriages as the norm but also what we would now call underage marriages. Whole cultures were based on this attitude.

So again, I believe these figures are misleading and not indicative of fuller picture throughout human history. And yes I agree that gays and straights can be paedophiles, although most right-thinking gays and straights are not going to be.

It is a rather large jump from there being gay fashion designers to them all being paedophile-oriented and predatory. There may be a few. And there's nothing to stop older men being attracted to younger ones (and vice versa), but most of these model guys are of age and capable of making their own choices. I do think some coersion for favour may happen, I am not blind, but it will go on in the straight side of the business and in many other industries, acting for example (the casting couch) for both straight and gay people. It happens, but I think you have to assume most people will be decent as in most cases. They can't spend their lives being predators or word would soon spread and they would lose employees to rivals.

Lula: Who has argued that “women have to look ultra feminised and men have to look masculine”? Not me. What do you mean “everyone starts with two X chromosomes”? The typical man has a single X chromosome from the very beginning (fertilized egg).

It is not necessary to know the true number of pedophiles to assess the proportion of heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals among those sexually interested in children. It is also not necessary to strictly rely on reported cases of child molestations to assess this question; one could anonymously assess people on whether they were molested as children and if so then ask them about the sex of the perpetrator(s). The conclusion of homosexual and bisexual individuals being much more likely to be sexually interested in children compared to heterosexuals is based on multiple lines of evidence.

I don’t believe that there is any culture that has glorified incestuous marriage as the norm. Any such culture wouldn’t survive for long. If you are interested in history, then look up historical descriptions of homosexual behavior; the typical description is in the context of pederasty.

Nobody here has made “a rather large jump from there being gay fashion designers to them all being paedophile-oriented and predatory.”

Sexual attraction to postpubescents is biologically and psychologically NORMAL. Where the law draws the line has no effect on nature. Sex between adults and teenagers became a taboo only in the twentieth century, and primarily in the most technologized countries.

Throughout human history until very recently, postpubescents were considered adults. Postpubescents entered the work force as farm workers, laborers, and apprentices in the trades and crafts. Historically the average age of brides was 13-17 and most marriages were between adult men and teenaged girls.

The industrial revolution changed everything. The explosion of jobs not dependent on higher physical strength made it possible, for the first time in world history, for huge numbers of women to support themselves financially without inheritances or land ownership or going straight from dependence on their fathers to dependence on their husbands. Increasing technological sophistication required lengthier training to enter the work force and elongated financial, educational, social and legal childhood, but biological childhood still ended at 12 to 14.

Prior to the invention of paternity tests, the only way a man could be certain a child was his was if the mother had never had sex with anyone else, and ensuring a bride's virginity and a wife's fidelity was relatively easy when females were married in their early teens and financially helpless to go anywhere or do anything without their husbands' permission. In the new world of longer education, later marriages and freer women, parents sought to control their daughters' virginity by passing age of consent laws to criminalize sex with postpubescent unmarried girls, and so a man who had sex with teenaged girls was suddenly redefined as a pervert. Only much later, when American law began shedding gender discrimination, were age of consent laws expanded to include boys.
Quote:

"It is not just gay fashion designers but homosexual and bisexual men in general that are often attracted to underage boys, much more often than heterosexual men are attracted to underage girls."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Most of the marriages in world history were between adult men and underaged girls; they just didn't call them underaged yet. Pretending that attraction to teenagers is much more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men is antihistorical and ludicrous.
Quote:

There is massive evidence from history (most homosexuality in history has been in a pederastic context), child molesting priests (great majority go after boys),

According to Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president, 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation, so it is inevitable that the great majority of Catholic priest pedophiles will go after boys. Protestant ministers are allowed to become husbands and fathers, and so Protestant ministers are far more likely to be heterosexual than Catholic priests are, so it is inevitable that the great majority of Protestant minister pedophiles go after girls. You've proved nothing.

The Catholic priesthood's celibacy vow provides a cover-up for pedophiles who need to hide their sexual activities and explain why they don't have sex with adults, which is why gay Catholic priests have a higher rate of pedophilia than either gay men in general or Protestant ministers in general.
Quote:

"fraternal birth order evidence showing that male homosexual pedophiles and male homosexuals attracted to adult men belong to the same broad sexual orientation group,"

All that proves, if it is true, is that male homosexuals have similar fraternal birth order patterns regardless of whether they are pedophiles or non-pedophiles. It doesn't prove that the homosexual pedophiles are a greater percentage of all homosexual men than the heterosexual pedophiles are of all heterosexual men.
Quote:

I've already disproved all your other "evidence", so if you want me to take seriously this "cluster analysis", explain it here. I'm not going to read the literature; the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, most successful fashion designers are homosexuals. Erik, your fantasy of a fashion industry run by heterosexual men is like a basketball league full of white guys. Market dominance through greater talent is not a monopoly; it's simply the law of supply and demand. Perhaps the particular artistic talent required for designing women's clothes is incompatible with heterosexual male psychology.

Yes, most homosexual fashion designers are attracted to teenaged boys because most adult men of any sexual orientation are attracted to teenagers. So? Hell, I'm sometimes attracted to late adolescent boys, but I don't sleep with them.

Yes, some homosexual fashion designers want the female models to look somewhat like teenaged boys. So? You can buy the clothes without admiring the models. Why do you care?
:question:

Sex between teenagers and adults isn’t exactly taboo in Western societies; the age is important. The age of consent is usually not greater than 18 and is 14 or 15 in some places. The lower cutoffs are not indicative of normal preferences though, especially in the past. In societies with a high mortality and almost nothing that we would call adolescence, the median age of marriage for girls would be in the teens. This doesn’t mean that that most men in such societies will have a preference for, say, girls in their mid-teens. When the median age of marriage for females was in the early teens in Rome because of high mortality, the typical reason for marriage was economic, political or carrying on the family bloodline, not romantic love. So men marrying girls in their mid-teens because custom/society demands that they do for one of several possible reasons doesn’t mean that historically speaking many/most men had a preference for girls in their mid-teens. On the other hand, the typical historical reference of homosexual behavior is in the context of sex with boys ranging from pre-puberty to early-/mid-adolescence, mostly documented within the priesthood or military and resulted from the preferences of the pederastic adults.

I have heard of varying estimates of the proportion of Catholic priests that are homosexual, from 25-50%. Even if we take your 50% figure, why is that the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report revealed that 81% of the recorded molestation allegations during 1950-2002 were of a homosexual nature if homosexuals are not overrepresented among child molesters in proportion to their numbers?

Before you rant against the fraternal birth order evidence and the results of the cluster analysis, you need to read the literature. Here it is and it won’t take a lot of your time.

The basketball analogy is weak. All-white teams have beaten NBA star teams on a number of occasions in recent years, and the white European teams keep getting better whereas the NBA players are stagnant. Watch what happens. Similarly, don’t bet against the establishment of alternative fashion industries.

What do you mean why do I care what models homosexuals are choosing? You have read plenty of this site. Haven’t you figured out yet? Read the FAQ.

"In societies with a high mortality and almost nothing that we would call adolescence, the median age of marriage for girls would be in the teens... So men marrying girls in their mid-teens because custom/society demands that they do for one of several possible reasons doesn’t mean that historically speaking many/most men had a preference for girls in their mid-teens."

I said attraction, not preference. Most adult men are attracted to teenaged girls even if they have a preference for adult women.
Quote:

"I have heard of varying estimates of the proportion of Catholic priests that are homosexual, from 25-50%. Even if we take your 50% figure, why is that the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report revealed that 81% of the recorded molestation allegations during 1950-2002 were of a homosexual nature if homosexuals are not overrepresented among child molesters in proportion to their numbers?"

The Catholic priesthood's taboo on marriage and fatherhood makes the Catholic priesthood not only far less attractive to straight men than to gay men (thus the Catholic priesthood population has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than the general population) but also far less attractive to straight pedophiles than to gay pedophiles, because many straight pedophiles do want to become husbands and fathers, if only to have a child at home to molest (thus the Catholic priesthood pedophile population has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than the Catholic priesthood general population). The Catholic priesthood taboo on marriage and fatherhood has this sort of "compound effect".

I'm not downloading a zip file. Period. If you want me to read the literature, post it on the website. Both Danielle and I have now asked you to post it so you can't keep claiming it isn't relevant to the discussion while you keep discussing it.
Quote:

"The basketball analogy is weak. All-white teams have beaten NBA star teams on a number of occasions in recent years, and the white European teams keep getting better whereas the NBA players are stagnant."

I made an offhand analogy regarding basketball in America. If white European men play basketball better than white American men, I wouldn't know.
Quote:

"Similarly, don’t bet against the establishment of alternative fashion industries."

I wouldn't bet against the establishment of a heterosexual fashion industry if some heterosexual men were actually TRYING to create their own fashion industry.
Quote:

"What do you mean why do I care what models homosexuals are choosing? You have read plenty of this site. Haven’t you figured out yet? Read the FAQ."

I read the FAQ. I don't believe that your primary motivation is to counteract the negative influence of excessively skinny models on women's diet and exercise habits because if it were, you would be comfortable with "masculinized" models who aren't too skinny. I realize you want a mainstream outlet for the appreciation of the kind of women you consider beautiful; I just don't understand WHY you want it. If you can find pictures of "feminine" women then why do you care whether those pictures are in the "mainstream" or not? Is it because you care what sort of women other men look at, and if so, why? And please don't just say "aesthetic disaster". My question why do you give a damn about said "aesthetic disaster"?
:question:

Um, just came across this blog, interesting at least. But it seems that too many here, wanting to draw attention to the psychological maladies or eccentricities of others, are oblivious to their own. Bitter, petty minded tirades are appearing every other post, and scrolling down this blog unleashes a maddening whirlwind of perverted priests, gender denying fashionistas, 'white trash' glamour girls and all white basketball teams. This is less of a reasoned debate than a rattle-tossing flamewar! Yes, I wonder if fashion's emphasis on the tall, lithe female type contains a subtle homoerotic subtext. But as more female designers and photographers (Prada, Jil Sander, Stella McCartney, Corrine Day, Elaine Constantine, Ellen von Unwerth et al) came onto the scene, quirky, shorter girls such as Kate Moss and Devon Aoki have been seen on the runways along with the Grecian goddesses. I think it's precisely the growing presence of female creatives which is driving the drift toward youth, in models of both sexes.

Designers such as Halston, Dior and Gaultier would never have launched the careers of childlike drips such as Kate Moss or Twiggy (styled and launched at 16 by her then boyfriend Justin de Villeneuve and a favourite of the very hetero David Bailey). Self possessed, even matriarchal women dominate the imaginations of gay men, both in the repressed past and the liberated present. Gay mens' female icons: Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, Joan Crawford. Womens' idea of female perfection: Audrey Hepburn, a sexless, Bambi-eyed lollipop whose extreme thinness resulted from childhood starvation.

And visit the male model forum 'modelhommes.com' to observe the differences between gay mens' and (young) womens' ideas of what is attractive in guys. The slender, elfin Mathias Lauridsen has few male admirers, whereas girls love his looks precisely because of his self-effacing, shy boyishness. One girl on 'The Fashion Spot' even encourages posts of boyish looking guys such as Stas Svetlichnyy under the premise of 'boys against men'. A bitter, misguided feminism runs under a great deal of the use of men in modern advertising; ads for trendy, youth oriented products such as mp3 players and mobile communications often feature slender, longhaired males who are more apparently feminine than the 'girlfriends' pictured next to them. They have almost no place in gay culture. Quite the contrary, shaven headed beefcakes full of attitude are what gay guys seem to want, just flick through a gay magazine to find out. Ruby lipped teenagers are actually thin on the ground there, despite Erik's obssessive belief that gay mags must surely represent an early learning toy catalogue. A 'twink' subculture exists, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the gay norm.

And why does everyone assume that the current state of fashion represents what has always been in fashion? Women such as Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer and Naomi Campbell may be unusually tall and slender, but they were nothing like the mopey, stick-like, rabbits in headlights that skulk along the catwalk now. Miuccia Prada, above all, seems to favour the palest, youngest and most abashed looking girls. Vivienne Westwood sent the then 13 year old Rachael Kirby down her catwalk in the late nineties. Seventies models such as Iman, Jerry Hall and Marie Helvin were slim, sure, but healthy and confident too. Heterosexual Guy Bourdin reduced several models to tears with the pornographic and violent themes of his shoots. Homosexual Herb Ritts received praise from Cindy Crawford, a woman with a 165 IQ, because 'he photographed women as they wanted to be seen'.

This is the problem with blogs like this, which are political at heart. The authors only see what they want to see, and fragmentary or vague evidence is seized upon, hyped up and trumpeted as gospel truth. And furthermore, what looks good in clothes and what looks good out of them sometimes ARE different. As a 17 year old guy, I stood at 6'2" and weighed just 10 stones, with a 27 inch waist. I looked great in clothes. At 33, I weigh 14 stones and work out. I look far better in the buff than I used to, but I'll never work a suit the same way. Curves look fantastic in a bikini, incongruous in a Grecian column.

Good luck in your quest to promote the archetypally feminine beauty. Most women have broad hips and full breasts, and should be happy to possess a look that is healthy and sensual. But why do you think that an emphasis on 'hourglass' figures (most women will never have the 24 inch waists of your 'womanlike' examples) and tiny facial features (some women have small eyes, strong chins and angular bone structure) is any less arbitrary? By positing every tall slim woman as 'masculine', you're hardly doing your bit for female self esteem, are you?!

To be honest, I think that the peculiar recent trends in fashion have their roots not in gay mens' collective psychology, but in a sex-denying drift in white middle class culture. Archetypal femininity in image reflects the same thing in mind, and bourgeois womens' minds are focusing less and less on family and caregiving and more on self fulfillment. In ethnic and white working class cultures where family is your reason for existing, not just a 'lifestyle choice', the curvy 'babe' still rules, as does the fully grown hunk. Black or Latina women have no time whatsoever for the hollow chested, permanently anxious boy rockers and Euro teens who white middle class girls fall head over heels for, from Gerard Way and Pete Doherty to the hollow cheeked blandards of the Paris and Milan shows. And of course, an increasing fondness for lesbian experimentation is taking place in colleges and universities, partly as a bitter rejection of everything 'patriarchal'. But, there you go. Erik obviously has his issues (and how!), and the agitprop girls love to blame everybody but themselves for their unhappiness, so gay guys will get it in the neck again. Even if, like the majority, they've never had any interest in female fashion whatsoever.

Wow, just looking over the rest of the site, you really are obssessed, aren't you Erik? BTW, can we take your over-emphasis on blonde models as proof of your racism? If not, why not? It wouldn't be any more presumptuous than your manipulative, ahem carefully selected 'reliable sources'.

As an afterthought, were you molested? Sorry if that were the case. But it would explain your tacky little fixation. Or maybe repressed feelings of homosexual attraction are what's at work here. Oh, who cares. You're clearly a f**k up regardless.

Whipped honey: You tell us that most heterosexual men are attracted to teenage girls even though they have a preference for adult women. This means that their attraction to adult women is stronger. Significant attraction toward girls in their late teens is understandable, but the historical marriage issues had nothing to do with “typical” attraction to teenage girls because too few heterosexual men have/had an interest in girls in their early- to mid-teens strong enough to prefer them to young adult women as stable/main partners. This discussion has digressed here, and I still have to respond there.

You left a comment on why there are more homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood than in the general population. The estimate range I gave you says this clearly, so why repeat the point? The question is, if homosexuals are not overrepresented among child molesters, then why is 25-50% of a population responsible for 80% of the molestations?

I am not posting lengthy text if it is tangential to this site. What is your problem with downloading a zipped file? When you access a web page, you download its contents to your computer, and these could malware without requiring you to download a zipped file. Why would I add malware to a zipped file offered for download? If I had gzipped output enabled, your browser would be downloading this page as a zipped file. Anyway, the updated contents of the zip file have been posted at a different site, which you eventually ran into.

I have clearly stated that the primary purpose of this site isn’t to counter the negative effects of skinny models on some women. So why say, “I don't believe that your primary motivation...”?

Quote:

- If you can find pictures of "feminine" women then why do you care whether those pictures are in the "mainstream" or not?

It isn’t about being feminine, but about being feminine and very attractive. Feminine and very attractive women will usually not pose nude. So it isn’t that I am able to find pictures of lots of feminine and very attractive women. Without some mainstream outlet, most such women are not coming to the limelight. Why do I want to establish at least one mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation? Most men are naturally interested in beautiful women. This needs no explanation; most men are born this way. However, most men are unable to do anything about what is going on. I haven’t seen others trying to bring feminine beauty to the limelight, and I believe that I can do this though it will take time, and hence have taken the task upon myself.

Digital: Your beef is with me. Don't criticize this site because you encounter “bitter, petty minded tirades” in the comments since these are by those not affiliated with this site. The article being commented on is a straightforward one, documenting the dominance of the fashion industry by male homosexuals, and it is argued in the context of explaining the looks of female fashion models. Off-topic issues such as basketball teams and priests are of little relevance to the article.

Blaming female designers and photographers for the looks of female high-fashion models is laughable. They are underrepresented among the powerful individuals in the fashion business. And there has been no trend toward shorter female high-fashion models. In the second half of the twentieth century, the average height of female fashion models increased (link 1, link 2). The average female high-fashion model is about 5-foot-10; most of them cluster around this value tightly. Kate Moss is an anomaly with respect to height, but anomalies do not change the average tendency. It is also easy to see how Kate Moss made it big. When she was discovered, in her mid-teens, she bore an uncanny resemblance to boys in their early adolescence, which more than compensated for her lack of height.

Whereas this site does not address male attractiveness, it would be easy to look up ratings of male attractiveness by women in numerous studies and show that women generally prefer men with above average masculinity in the physique. So don’t bother trying to explain the effeminate physiques of numerous male models in terms of female preferences.

You mentioned a website and some prominent magazines for gay men, but these do not help us infer the preferences of the homosexuals. By law, there cannot be mainstream sources for homosexual men interested in nude boys (less than 18). And you write, “Erik's obssessive belief that gay mags must surely represent an early learning toy catalogue.”! Whereas it is true that many homosexual men prefer muscular men, a substantial proportion of them prefer young boys, much greater than the proportion of heterosexual men who prefer young girls.

Who do you think has assumed “that the current state of fashion represents what has always been in fashion?” Not me (see this article about twentieth century trends), not Danielle (she has mentioned the trends elsewhere) and I don’t think any of the others either.

You have describe this blog as political and described the arguments as “The authors only see what they want to see, and fragmentary or vague evidence is seized upon, hyped up and trumpeted as gospel truth.” The quote applies to your comment. Look around this site; the arguments are extensively backed by citations, the majority from peer-reviewed journals. You, on the other hand, come with so reasonable statements such as wondering whether I am repressing homosexual desires!

Recent trend in among fashion models cannot be blamed on the preferences of upper class white heterosexual individuals. The studies that have documented an overwhelming preference for above average femininity and a healthy body weight in women have not shown a tendency for upper class white individuals to prefer thin and masculine-looking women compared to their lower class counterparts.

What do you mean there is an increasing fondness for lesbian experimentation in colleges and universities? The prevalence of reported homosexual behavior in women has increased over the past two decades, but the most obvious explanation is that with diminishing stigma against homosexuality, a greater proportion of women with a homosexual component to their attractions have participated in lesbian sex. This is not the same as more women experimenting with homosexuality.

I am not prone to obsessions. What you see in the form of this site is required to bring about change. If there is a better way to achieve change, I am unaware of it. Blonde women are a minority within this site. Even if they are overrepresented, this overrepresentation is no more racist than the overrepresentation of men in prison is sexist. Look up high-end models working as fashion models, fitness models or other major types of models...Northern Europeans are overrepresented, period.

1. 80% of molestations are not perpetrated by homosexuals. It is acknowledged by social scientists and law enforcment that the most likely perpetrator in the case of the molestation of a child is a close family friend or a family member who would lead what would be described as a heterosexual life. To suggest that the molestation indicates underlying homosexuality is also an invalid inference. Paedophilia is a prediliction independent of sexual orientation. It is a myth that sexual deviance and crime is largly the preserve of homosexuals.

2. The average stats of the model have indeed changed over the years but so to have the average stats of women in gerneral. The average height has gone from 5ft4' to 5ft7'. The average waist from 26 inches to 32. The average dress size from 10 to 14.

3. The fashion industry does not set out to set standards for womens beauty. It is women who impose these standards on themselves. It is patronizing to suggest that the industry should take responsibility for poor self image. Women should build a confidence in themselves
without help from the fashion industry. There will always be those, both men and women and in areas other than the fashion industry who will never be satisfied with what they have or look like. This is a human trait which is most prevalent in affluent societies where people do not utilise emotional energy on where to find their next meal or being able to afford clothes and shelter.

4. Just as societies with low average wealth (in relative terms) admire a fuller figure as an indication of health and wealth, western societies idealise the slim physique as it suggests spartan living and absence of gluttony and over indulgence.

As you seem to prefer to bombard people with stats and facts to justify your personal views at least verify them first. Otherwise you are simply indulging in reverse engineering of your arguments.

Whereas the average woman has gained weight over the past few decades, she hasn’t gained 3 inches in height. Please don’t tell me that women in general have imposed the standards on themselves that people think the fashion industry is responsible for. Why then do controlled laboratory studies show an overwhelming preference for a healthy body weight and above average femininity in the looks of women on the part of contemporary Western women?

I don’t prefer to bombard people with stats and facts. To avoid accusations of subjective arguments, I need to back up my arguments with empirical evidence. Even so, I get accused of making political arguments (See “Digital” above). Imagine what would happen if I didn’t have the stats to back myself up.

Erik if you want anyone to take you seriously I wouldn't advise you to back up your arguments with a link to a site that you write for. No one is saying that their is no instance of homosexuals taking an interest in children but it is not true that it is more likely than heterosexuals. Some of the most horrific cases of child abuse and molestation have been
perpetrated by heterosexual men on young girls. Cases of incest, such as
the abuse of a girl by her father. These cases were and still are considered more taboo than those within the priesthood. The sex abuse scandals in the church are finally coming to surface but as for cases within familys, most will never be heard about. Recently in Ireland, cases have been brought by adult women against male family members citing years of sexual abuse during their childhood, some,disturblingly, leading to the the birth of a child.

Erik: Apologies for not clarifying, by 'over the years' I was implying the past century as model stats for the past century are cited. I was indeed off with the figure of 3inches, it is in fact substantially more:

'The world is growing up. While today's humans may not be any wiser than their forebears, they are much taller: in the past 150 years the average height of Europeans, for example, has climbed more than 20 cm. And according to the emerging science of auxology, the study of human growth, becoming taller means a whole lot more than seeing better at football matches or being able to paint the bathroom ceiling without a ladder.'

TIME Magazine
October 14, 1996 Volume 148, No. 16

Semantic maybe, but if you state a 'fact' expect people to contradict you with reliable sources. No more throw away remarks!

Please! You constantly refer to the 'masculinzed' females who resemble adolescent boys, in your opinion. They're hardly gonna resemble grown men, are they?! There isn't enough testosterone in any unmedicated woman to bring about the craggy, strong jawed facial features of an adult male. So maybe the resemblance to younger, pre-adult males is coincidental. If you think many of these women resemble males, say so. But to record this as 'evidence' of the greater tendency of homosexuals toward paedophilia is absurd. Report crime statistics, sure. But I'll look to those statistics, not your cooked up, theoretical posts on fashion to affirm my beliefs. And of course my beef here is with you. I think your remarks are blinkered in the least, and I couldn't give a rat's ass on your 'credentials'. Furthermore, haven't you pondered why gay men bother to design for females in the first place, if they have such antagonism for the opposite sex? They could just bypass women altogether and focus there considerable creative gifts on men, surely a smarter and more effective way of 'recruiting', as some conservatives believe to be a major part of the gay agenda.

The gay men designing for women are also designing for men. Its their job, but they prefer to design for boyish/androgynous physiques than feminine curves. I didn’t say that they generally harbor animus toward women though it may be mistakenly assumed sometimes. For instance, you may be aware of last year’s Dolce & Gabbana ad showing a prelude to a woman’s gangrape. Feminists were infuriated by the violent imagery, but D&G argued that the ad depicted the woman’s fantasy. I believe D&G were speaking truthfully, and if people understood that mental illnesses such as sadomasochism (e.g. manifestation in the form of a rape fantasy) are much more common among homosexuals, then they would not readily jump to the conclusion of D&G being anti-women. D&G made the point that a substantial proportion of their customers are women, and so why would they dislike them? Homosexual designers do what pleases them as long as they can get away with it.

I think your comments about "There is massive evidence from history (most homosexuality in history has been in a pederastic context), child molesting priests..."etc., are way off base. Consider the fact that until recently, and even now only in developed parts of the Western World, are there limitations on the age of consent, etc. For THOUSANDS of years, it was very much accepted and even encouraged, and in some parts, many in fact, still is, for men to marry VERY young girls. Girls on the very cusp of pubescence. You say that percentage wise more homosexual men are attracted to boys. I think that probably, any statistics showing this reflect a growing CULTURAL trend in our society against pederasty which homosexuals haven't encountered as strongly yet because of a general prejudice against them. In fact, if you look at history, it is well documented that MEN in GENERAL like 'em young, and if you look in the parts of the world where men are still allowed to marry multiple 12-year old wives and enjoy doing so, I think you'll find you need to review your stats. I see where some of your arguments are coming from, but I think that making comments like this is dangerous and offensive.

Alex: I haven’t designed this site to be offensive, but offending some people is inevitable if this site is to fulfill its purpose. It is not true that men have historically generally married very young girls. I have addressed this issue above, and now I will quote an anthropologist:

I’ve been reading your site for a few months now, but this is the first time i’ve felt very compelled to answer. I am an anthropologist with a specialty on extinct hunter-gatherer cultures, and I must say that 16 is not considered full maturity in most cultures. (and i apologize if the following rambles).

A 16 year old may be considered old enough to marry in some cultures, but women in subsistence-level cultures are not considered fully adult until they bear their first child (in cultures that practice child marriage, the children even live with their parents post-marriage until the parents deem them mature and responsible enough to move out). If a female is a memmber of a culture that is truly subsistence-level, tshe will likely not give birth to a healthy, live infant until her EARLY 20s. Unless excessive calories are available to provide enough fat to create excess developmental estrogen, teenagers are frequently incapable of carrying a fetus more than a few weeks, let alone to full-term. Even if they *do* have enough, their bodies have troubles. Even modern western teens typically have the hardest labors, post-partum problems, and premature babies amongst new moms. In a small part of Ethiopia where the ideal bride is post-menses and 12, they have enough care and calories to become pregnant at such young ages, and typically end up with a gaping hole after the birth (frequently a stillbirth) that stretches from the urogenital opening to the anus– these women are shunned hags by the age of 18.

Without modern western medicine, many teen moms and their babies would not survive. This is even reflected in many women’s bodies. It is very common for a female human to “finish” puberty in their late teens or early 20s, where the body will naturally carry an increased load of fat (especially around the hips, buttocks, and tummy pooch) and the pelvic girdle will widen, making room for babies to grow and to be born easier. In addition, the electrical connections in the brain (especially the ones responsible for being able to think through actions into the future and consider hard consequences) do not finish connecting until the mid-20s (this length of time for connections is also present in males, and it, combined with an excessive youth testosterone load, makes the leading cause of preventable death in 15-25 yr old males “doing something stupid”).

Taking this into account, and adding the modern western ideas of childhood and maturation, a 16-year old is still a child; a post-pubescent child, or an adolescent, but still a child nevertheless. I know some girls that, even without decreased caloric intake, do not even *start* menses until they were 16 or older.

I would also like to remind people that we consider 8 year olds children, but at the turn of the 19th century they were expected to go out and work in factories to make money for the family, even leaving the home to live in factory dormitories; in some so-called modern cultures, 8 year olds can even function as prostitutes. Does this make them adults, since they can go to work, have intercourse, and in some cases even bear children? I would really like to say no, or there would not be a taboo or laws against having intercourse with post-menses females under certain ages.
basically, to quote a popular song from a couple of years ago, 16 years old is not quite a child, not yet a woman.

You argument that statistics on higher rates of sexual interest in or sexual involvement with children among homosexuals “reflect a growing CULTURAL trend in our society against pederasty which homosexuals haven't encountered as strongly yet because of a general prejudice against them” doesn’t make sense. And where is the evidence that men in general like them young (as in children)?

Regarding this site being dangerous, it is dangerous for those who would like to preserve the things that I am trying to change, but it is not dangerous as in something that will cause more harm than good.

And please don’t distort my argument by saying I am accusing homosexuals of being pedophiles. Regarding wife beaters, deadbeat dads and the sort, this website has nothing to do with them. And this site is not about male fashion models, but you might be interested in reading the latest on the body weight requirements of male fashion models. Come up with a better explanation of the female high-fashion models’ looks trinity (very thin, masculine, teenagers) or quit.

I applaud your critique on the beauty ideal for women, because women are according to the fashion kings the most beautiful when they look like men. And Yes,
Danielle, when I look at fashion models, I think most of them look like drag queens.

I don't agree with the people forcing us to believe in this random beauty ideal. But, this site isn't completely fair either. In the attractive women section, only white women are displayed.
That's unintentionally racist and not fair. There are so incredibly much beautiful non-white women, that I think you should put some of
them in your attractive women section as well. Otherwise you're just not realistic like you claim to be and just as mean as the fashion designers.

I would just like to point out that a good majority of your selection of "attractive women" are made to look like adolescent girls. For example, pig tails only make a girl look younger. Fashion models don't have any thing to do with sex appeal, like the pictures you chose, which are pornographic. It's about showcasing the work of the designer. You're a crackpot.